What if Attila had not attacked west?

[BauglirZero]

Hi, (I'm new here), I'm not an expert in roman history, but I know that Attila had a major role in the fall of Rome. So this is my question, what would have happened if Attila instead attacking west had attacked east or something else. I suggest that Rome would survive a longer time that OTL without huns and germanic tribes. I mean, with not huns attacking the germans, they probably had not invaded (and migrated to) Rome as they did. Am I wrong?

[Alex1guy]

Originally Posted by BauglirZero

Hi, (I'm new here), I'm not an expert in roman history, but I know that Attila had a major role in the fall of Rome. So this is my question, what would have happened if Attila instead attacking west had attacked east or something else. I suggest that Rome would survive a longer time that OTL without huns and germanic tribes. I mean, with not huns attacking the germans, they probably had not invaded (and migrated to) Rome as they did. Am I wrong?

Well I believe they tried heading to the East, but were stopped by the Sassinds? Someone correct me? Perhaps if they went that way instead you might buy Rome some time?

[BauglirZero]

Originally Posted by Alex1guy

Well I believe they tried heading to the East, but were stopped by the Sassinds? Someone correct me? Perhaps if they went that way instead you might buy Rome some time?

The huns? I know the white huns attack the Sassanids, but the main group (Attila's) I'm not sure.

[Alex1guy]

Originally Posted by BauglirZero

The huns? I know the white huns attack the Sassanids, but the main group (Attila's) I'm not sure.

Hmm according to wiki

When defeated in Armenia by the Sassanids, the Huns abandoned their invasion and turned their attentions back to Europe. In 440 they reappeared in force on the borders of the Roman Empire, attacking the merchants at the market on the north bank of the Danube that had been established by the treaty.

Though I'm not familliar with how the Huns were broken up in terms of grouping. I believe these were Attila's lot?

[Grouchio]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Asia_400ad.jpg

Well according to this map they could very well head straight to the east and camp out nearby the Aral and Balkhash seas. Attacking the Sassanids would be to their south.

[FDW]

If they went for Persia? That might buy the Romans enough time to get their affairs in order. It would certainly butterfly the invasions of at least some of the German tribes (though not all of them).

[MNP]

Originally Posted by BauglirZero

Hi, (I'm new here), I'm not an expert in roman history, but I know that Attila had a major role in the fall of Rome. So this is my question, what would have happened if Attila instead attacking west had attacked east or something else. I suggest that Rome would survive a longer time that OTL without huns and germanic tribes. I mean, with not huns attacking the germans, they probably had not invaded (and migrated to) Rome as they did. Am I wrong?

Yes and no.

Peter Heather speculates that the rise of the Huns actually slowed Germanic attacks on the western empire as the Germanic energy became expended in resisting or helping the Huns subjugate the rest of the tribes. After the Hunnic empire broke apart, the Germanics were once again free to attack the empire. It's possible the two Gothic groups that invaded the empire in 372 and became the visigoths were fleeing Hunnic domination. That's a big thing. Aside from this, had the Huns attacked and beaten the Sassanids it would have been a HUGE positive for the empire. So many imperial resources had to be committed to hold the line against the Sassanids that Rome had little margin for error on other fronts. Who knows if they could have beaten the Sassanids. It's not like Turkish type nomads haven't whipped Persia through the centuries.

I think this would probably extend the life of the empire. The very presence of empire generates resistance to it that can overcome it but bottom line: As long as the empire can keep the trust of the landowners by protecting their property without beggaring them with taxes, it will survive.

[Avitus]

If you mean the Huns as a whole turning eastwards, that would probably be a major plus for the Empire, since hurting the Sassanids would be very good for the empire, while in the West, if nothing else that is one less tribe to face. As for Atilla personally, he attacked the Eastern Roman Empire First, ravaged a portion of the Balkans, and then his forces caught a plague and turned back, much like they later did in the west.

Atilla himself I feel has always been given an undeserved level of significance. He was a scarey guy, but in his only real battle with a Roman army he lost to Flavius Aetius, and was forced to turn around. What he did personally was only a drop in the bucket of the Roman Empire's problems. Compared to the Goths, Franks, Vandals, and really even the Saxons, Atilla's Huns achieved little, as is evidensed by the fact that there were no Hunnic successor states carved out of the WRE. A much better PoD from the Roman Empire's perspective would be to replace one of the WRE's numerous horrifyingly incompetent emperors in the 350-450 time frame with a brilliant statesman who is also a capable military leader, on the order of Constantine I at least.

[Mikestone8]

It could be argued that Attila brough the Hunnish Empire down, by expanding it way beyond its means.

Had it remained limited to the area from Hungary to the Caspian Sea (better cavalry country than further west) it could probably have gone on a lot longer, especially as the Visigoths would have had far less need to sink their differences with Rome.

[tallthinkev]

As far as I can recall, didn't the Eastern Roman Empire pay the Huns off? Then they tried the same thing in the west.

[Bee]

Originally Posted by tallthinkev

As far as I can recall, didn't the Eastern Roman Empire pay the Huns off? Then they tried the same thing in the west.

Under Theodosius II they did. When Marcian succeeded, he terminated the Hun subsidy and dared Attila to fight. Instead, Attila led his hordes west.

[Basileus Giorgios]

Originally Posted by Avitus

A much better PoD from the Roman Empire's perspective would be to replace one of the WRE's numerous horrifyingly incompetent emperors in the 350-450 time frame with a brilliant statesman who is also a capable military leader, on the order of Constantine I at least.

Valentinian I was fairly competent, wasn't he? As was Constantius III? A good POD would seem to me to involve Constantius III living about fifteen years longer than OTL, and leaving the throne to his son Valentinian III, who would by this point be seventeen or eighteen years old and probably a good deal more able to take an active role in his reign. But that's a bit off topic.

[Alex1guy]

Originally Posted by Grouchio

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Asia_400ad.jpg

Well according to this map they could very well head straight to the east and camp out nearby the Aral and Balkhash seas. Attacking the Sassanids would be to their south.

South, sorry

I'm not farmilliar with how the Sassanids fought, how did they drive the Huns back towards the Roman Empire?

[Mikestone8]

Originally Posted by Alex1guy

South, sorry

I'm not farmilliar with how the Sassanids fought, how did they drive the Huns back towards the Roman Empire?

I'm a bit vague, but have the impression that Persia included a lot of semi-nomadic types who could probably fight the Huns on their own terms.

Aside from that, Persia had a lot of mountain and desert country which was eminently defensible. Even so, though, they took a clobbering from the White Huns in 484, so they may have been just lucky.

[BauglirZero]

So, without Attila Rome would have had more problems with the Germanics? But if Attila had attacked the Sassanids, then Rome would have greater defenses?.

[FDW]

Originally Posted by Mikestone8

I'm a bit vague, but have the impression that Persia included a lot of semi-nomadic types who could probably fight the Huns on their own terms.

Aside from that, Persia had a lot of mountain and desert country which was eminently defensible. Even so, though, they took a clobbering from the White Huns in 484, so they may have been just lucky.

There are a lot of things in history that are just lucky, and besides, The Huns were from a land that had a lot of Mountains and Deserts.

[Mikestone8]

Originally Posted by FDW

There are a lot of things in history that are just lucky, and besides, The Huns were from a land that had a lot of Mountains and Deserts.

From what I can gather, the White Huns didn't follow up their victory, but were content with more tribute.

Attila's mistake was probably to go for Gaul rather than Italy. An attack on Italy wouldn't have bothered the Visigoths, who indeed might take the opportunity to grab more of Gaul for themselves. So Aetius' anti-Hun alliance doesn't form, and the Germanics just go right on carving up the Western Empire..